Min DOF Photography

I returned the lens today and I intend to post the review by the end of this week. As you can see I didn’t go to Venice, the trip was canceled. I really looked forward to it, since I could really test the lens on a carnival with all those masks and interesting architecture. Instead of that I had to test it in Ljubljana, which was almost “maskless”. To be honest I wouldn’t even take this lens for the test if it weren’t for Venice, because UWA lenses really don’t interest me that much. Besides that I’ve decided that I’m going to test portrait primes almost exclusively.

I’m going to save you from all this talking and get straight to the photos, that I’ve taken today with my mean man Fločo. All of this in a few minutes. Models like this are really rare. They’re priceless. His specialty is appearing retarded. And I’m laughing out loud again, when I’m viewing them…

This one just has to be enlarged!

Šta da vam kažem…

As I promised in the previous post, I’m going to post the comparison. As you can see 17-55 is sharper in most cases, especially when you take a look at the second set of comparison samples. There’s a huge difference in the sharpness in the center. In the 1st set of samples 17-55 is a bit sharper in the third, where IS was turned on, 17-55 is sharper at f2.8 (center and border), but 50 1.8 is sharper at f5.6 (again center and border).

17-55 is always on the left side of the comparison photos. IS was turned off unless noticed otherwise.

Taken with 17-55 2.8, vignetting is visible

F2,8, 1/2000, 50 MM, ISO 100

F4, 1/1000, 50 MM, ISO 100

F5,6, 1/500, 50 MM, ISO 100

F8, 1/250, 50 MM, ISO 100

F2,8, 1/125, 50 MM, ISO 100


F4, 1/250, 50 MM, ISO 100


F5,6, 1/500, 50 MM, ISO 100


F8, 1/1000, 50 MM, ISO 100

IS turned on. I didn’t have enough time to do a more detailed test on IS affect on sharpness (I had this lens for a week). But it seems it doesn’t soften the image, if it does, the difference is minimal.

F2,8, 1/3200, 50 MM, ISO 100


F5,6, 1/800, 50 MM, ISO 100

Canon introduced this lens on PMA 2006 and from then on, Canon APS-C sized camera users con choose one more standard zoom lens. Last year has been full of introductions of standard zoom lenses. Besides this one, Tamron introduced 17-50 2.8, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 Macro (I’ve posted a review of this one in December) and 18-50 2.8 and Tokina 16-50 2.8 which is not on the shelves yet. But Canon 17-55 2.8 IS USM has at least two advantages already on paper. Image stabilisation and USM (ultra silent motor), which ensures very fast and near silent focusing and has a manual focus override. I don’t know how it compares regarding image quality, but I seriously doubt any of the 3rd party lenses can really compete with it - but ofcourse I’m not saying this as a fact, because I haven’t compared them side to side, I’ve really only tested Sigma 17-70 which really can’t compare with the Canon’s although it’s a fine lens (but a completely different class anyway). Image quality (of 17-55) not only amazed me, but shocked me! After the first day of testing I got home and started viewing the photos that I took and I couldn’t believe a standard zoom lens could be so sharp. It was damn sharp! Sharp across the aperture range (f2.8-8) I really couldn’t tell the difference between f2.8 and f8 in the center (throughout the zoom range). And that is great, finally a zoom lens that is sharp wide open. On the borders the difference between f2.8 and f8 is visible, but after all it’s a reduced image circle sized lens, made for APS-C only. so border to border sharpness at wide open aperture setting can’t be expected. I think this lens is visibly sharper then its bigger EF WA brothers 16-35 2.8L and 17-40 f4L. Especially wide open, there’s a big difference. I think it’s a bit sharper then 24-70 2.8, but I should really compare them side by side to be sure of that. But I did compare it with 50 1.8 (which is a sharp lens in the f2.8-8 range). You’ll be able to read more about that comparison in one of the next posts - there are just too many photos to post them all at once. One more thing that I noticed: sharpness is not that good at close distances (portraits etc). You’ll be able to check that on your own from the samples I posted below.
Vignetting is visible at f2.8 (photos of the sky etc), otherwise it’s well controlled. Bokeh is also good (for this focal range and aperture size) as well as contrast and colours.
As I mentioned before it has a very fast and almost silent USM drive (ring type), including full-time manual focusing (FTM). Front element does not rotate during focusing (it has internal focusing), so polarising filter can be used easily. Filter size is 77 mm.
By using IS you can gain 3 f stops (at cost of slower shutter speeds) it works for static objects. I managed to gain 4 stops, but this is very relative since it depends on many factors - the way you hold the camera, if you have shaky hands it doesn’t help and at the end the proper breathing technique can help you achieve slower shutter speed (greater f stop gain). It has no 2nd mode for panning. There’s no need for shutting down IS when the camera is on a tripod (it detects the lack of motion).


Built quality is good, but for the price you pay it could be better. Since it’s not an L class lens it doesn’t have magnesium alloy body and it’s not protected against dust and humidity. It doesn’t even come with a hood lens. I really think Canon do better for the price you pay.

Here are the samples, all the images are taken with Canon 350D, except for the last one, which is taken with 400D. The next post that is going to be posted by the end of this week (17-55 vs 50 1.8) all the images were captured with Canon 400D. IS was turned off, unless written otherwise.

Please view LARGER, otherwise images look a bit soft.

17 mm, f2.8-8, center and border crops


f2.8, 1/1000, 17 mm, ISO 100


f4, 1/500, 17 mm, ISO 100


f5.6, 1/250, 17 mm, ISO 100


f8, 1/125, 17 mm, ISO 100

28 mm, f2.8-8, center and border crops

f2.8, 1/100, 28 mm, ISO 100


f4, 1/500, 28 mm, ISO 100


f5.6, 1/320, 28 mm, ISO 100


f8, 1/160, 28 mm, ISO 100

55 mm, f2.8-8, center and border crops

f2.8, 1/1000, 55 mm, ISO 100


f4, 1/640, 55 mm, ISO 100


f5.6, 1/320, 55 mm, ISO 100

f8, 1/125, 55 mm, ISO 100

IS test: f11, 1/8, 55 mm, ISO 100

Bokeh: f2.8, 1/800, 55 mm,ISO 100

Below are a few portraits, you can check the shaprness on the crops. It’s not as good as on longer distances, but still adequate. You can check bokeh on this shots as well.

f2.8, 1/200, 52 mm,ISO 100, IS on


f2.8, 1/200, 52 mm,ISO 100, IS on


f2.8, 1/60, 51 mm, ISO 200, IS on, flash bounced of the ceiling

f3.5, 1/200, 53 mm, ISO 200, IS on

f2.8, 1/60, 55 mm, ISO 800, IS on, postprocessed

Pros:
-sharpness throughout the focal and aperture range
-very fast and almost silent AF
-colour&contrast
-IS performance

Cons:
-built quality could be better regarding the high price tag
-vignetting at f2.8

I’ve had this lens for a few days, mounted on Pentax k10d. The first impression was great, a very small and light, but very well built lens (metal). Filter size is just 49 mm, its size is 26×63 mm and it weights only 130 g (even lighter than Canon EF 50 1.8 which weighs 5 g more and is completely made out of plastic). It has also an integrated lens hood (or it it a screw on design, I’m not sure but it was already on a brand new lens). A joy to have for a walkaround lens, I personally don’t like big, bulky, heavy equipment.

But when it comes to the image quality, all I can say is, that it’s substandard for a fixed focal lenght. It’s soft up to f3.5, so I’ve shot with it mostly on f4 (I usually never go above that, I mostly shoot in the f1.8-f2.8 with fast lenses). So I don’t really see the point in buying a fast lens, which is not only soft wide open, but all the way up to (including) f3.5. Besides that it has the noisiest AF motor I’ve ever hear, pretty annoying. I didn’t test it thoroughly, so I can’t say much about colours, contrast and bokeh, although my first impression was that they were good.

And at the end we come to the price. It costs over 500 euros in Slovenia, what is in my opinion way too much for the image quality and AF it offers.

Lets get to the photos. All of the colour photos are unprocessed, I just added a bit of USM after resizing. The second and third photo also show low dynamic range of the Pentax k10d. All of the shots were taken in cloudy weather, so there were no harsh shadows/contrast transitions, so therefore blown out parts of the photo shouldn’t occur. I never had such experiences with any of Canon (tested the whole lineup) or Nikon (I’ve mostly shot with D70) Cameras. It’s a shame, because k10d is otherwise a nice camera, with a very competitive price (good value). Unfortunately I haven’t had luck with the weather, so I had to use ISO 250-800 and AS too (but from what I’ve seen AS doesn’t affect sharpness (much)).

f4, 1/60, ISO 400, AS on


f4, 1/60, ISO 250, AS on


f2.4, 1/100, ISO 800, AS on

I got my hands on it today. My first impression is that it’s by far the sharpest zoom lens in this range. I know it has the reputation for being ultra sharp, that’s why I brought the Canon EF 50 1.8 with me to the city centre (mostly architectural photos), but didn’t compare it - I plan to in the next few days. I think they are comparable at 50 mm, we’ll see if my assumption is correct by the end of next week when I’ll post a complete review, with 100% crops across the focal and aperture (f2.8-f8) range as well as IS tests.

center 100% crop: 17 mm, IS off, shutter speed: short enough;), ISO 100

100% crop: 55mm, IS on (I forgot to turn it off), f2.8, 1/200, ISO 100

I tested antoher Sigma lens yesterday in the ZOO, the 70-200 2.8 Macro. And it was just one more Sigma lens with frontfocus issues. I tested 9 Sigma lenses in the last few months and only 5 were without AF issues. Here’s a short summary:
-18-200 for Canon: ok
-17-70 for Canon: ok
-50-150 for Canon: minimal frontfocus (but unusable at f2.8 in the 100-150 range on close focusing distance (headshots etc) - because of the shallow DOF, where frontfocus is more visible, image is unusable)
-10-20 for Canon: ok
-70 2.8 macro for Nikon: ok
-300 2.8 for Canon: frontfocus
-8 mm f3.5 circular fisheye for Canon: ok
-30 1.4 for Canon: weird AF issues (read the complete review for details, posted a week ago)
-70-200 2.8 Macro for Canon: frontfocus

It’s really a shame that 70-200 2.8 Macro has frontfocus issues, because it’s tack sharp at f3.2 (very few Sigma’s are). Here are a couple of samples which came out ok (tested on Canon 350D):

f3.5. 1/500, ISO 200

100% crop from the photo above

f3.2

And this is the focus test. I focused on the line below number 50. Frontfocus is quite pronounced (f2.8, 200 mm):

Yeah, today I added two more leneses to the pile of equipment. The
two Sigma’s mentioned in previous post (100-300 f4 and 70-200 2.8 Macro). Today is a beautiful day too (warm and cloudy, perfect for the test), so I’m going to the ZOO with my boy Luc. Ufff, I’m going to be late…Ups I forgot one of the Olympus boxes.

Besides the two sessions that I had, I have to test a ton of photo equipment. Ok I’ll skip the Olyumpus mju (a colleague will do it), since I hate compact cameras, but the rest of the equipment is pretty interesting to test (especially the lenses and Pentax k10d). I should get two more lenses today, Sigma 70-200 2.8 Macro and Sigma 100-300 f4. I can’t wait to take them to the ZOO. The weather is currently sweet, 15C in January - crazy. And it’s supposed to stay like that during the weekend. Ideal for testing.

This time the reviewed lens is a fast, so called standard lens. The word standard means that its field of view is the same (or very similar) as when we are looking through our own eyes. It’s focal lenght 30 mm resembles classic standard lenses (50mm) on full frame camera (I’ve tested it on Canon 350D). Optically this lens is a great performer, regarding center sharpness, even wide open. Border sharpness is not that good, as you’ll be able to see from samples posted below the text. Vignetting is visible at large aperture setting (up to about f2), CA is below average for a prime of this focal lenght, it’s visible at all aperture settings. AF is pretty fast, but I expected it to be faster (it has HSM). Full time manual focusing is possible. It’s almost near silent, but has some weird accuracy issues. It doesn’t have classical front/back focus issues, but the focus sometimes misses although the subject appears in focus (it’s hard to explain and yes I’m sure it was in focus since I have a lot of practise of min dof portraits, where superb accuracy is needed). It kind of jumps into frontfocusing. I thought that this copy had some kind of AF defect (it also makes weird noises, when focal point is changed from min focus distance to infinity), but I’ve read, that issues like this (and exactly like this) are common. But quality is up to the EX class, feels very good and solid.

This sample is taken at f4, 1/100, ISO 200. Below you can see samples from f1.4-f4.


f1.4


f2


f2.8


f4

f2, 1/250, ISO 100

AF issue, which I mentioned. Happens at cca 10-20% of the shots.
f1.6, 1/125, ISO 400 (+2 stops in Rawshooter)

CA at f1.4

CA at f8

f2.8, 1/2, ISO 200, flash, boosted contrast, decreased saturation

Can u say retarded? Re-tar-ded…f2, 1/250, ISO - a bit of contrast added

f1.8, 1/125,ISO 400, boosted contrast

Pros:
-center sharpness
-fast&silent AF
-built quality
Cons:
-border sharpness
-AF issues
-CA

Conclusion: I’m not sure if I’d recommend this lens. Without the AF issues, I probably would. So if you get your hands on a good copy and need a fast normal lens, then yes, I’d recommend it. I guess I’m so used to my wide open, border to border sharp Canon EF 85 1.8, which focuses bang on and has nicer, more saturated colours. I know that you can’t compare tele lenses with wide angle lenses ragarding sharpness, but there is no reason for the AF issues or “unattractive” colours. But a prime lens should still deliver better border sharpness. The biggest plus of this lens is the big aperture and built quality. The price is ok, but I couldn’t say it’s a bargain.

This is the next in line of Sigma lenses that I’ve tested. And is so far my favourite (out of cca 12 lenses). Image quality is very impressive for an ultrawide lens - as most of you probably know, (ultra)wide lenses don’t have a reputation of having great image sharpness. That’s why I was even more impressed. At 10 mm it’s a gem. Sharp wide open, both in the center and on the borders and very sharp when stopped down a bit (f5.6-8). I did most of the test shots on the 10 mm settings, because of the UWA perspective (you can do a lot of interesting, crazy things with it). Sharpness in the center is good across the whole range, however border sharpness drops a bit when you’re “zooming” towards the long end. Some moderate vignetting and CA is visible at 10 mm, but in the 15-20 range it’s only a minor issue. Again bare in mind that this is an UWA lens which usually have more aberrations etc. Barrel distortion is quite pronounced at 10 mm. Built quality is excellent. AF is very fast and silent (it has HSM), it has full time manual override, manual focus and zoom rings run smooth and are well damped. Filter size is 77 mm.

This lens is very usable for nature shots, panoramas, sports like snow&skateboarding (you can “blow” the skater into the sky, because of the UWA perspective), architecture and funny portraits (I messes around quite a bit with my friends). I can only highly recommend this lens to anyone who needs an UWA lens. The price is very good too.

Below are the samples taken with Canon 400D. The field of view when mounted on 400D, is equivalent to 16-32mm on a full frame camera. From the crops you can judge image sharpness (center and border) for yourself. All the samples have slo-foto.net watermark, don’t get alert - I made the test for that site and I’m the author of the photos.

Please view LARGER.

F6.3, 1/100, 10 mm, ISO 200

On the sample above you can see some CA

F6.3, 1/25, 20 mm, ISO 100

F5.6, 1/50, 20mm, ISO 100

F7.1, 1/30, 10 mm, ISO 100

F4, 1/13, 10 mm, ISO 800

Below you can see two examples of how UWA perspective can be used. Train appears to be infinitely long and the sky is also “stretched”:

F6.3, 1/80, 10 mm, ISO 100

F8, 1/320, 10 mm, ISO 100

If you’re interested in studio part of the test (resolution chart) it’s available here . All the shots were taken by Sandi Pelko. All the paramaters were set to 0 (sharpness, saturation etc), mine (taken outside) were set to the standard picture styles (sharpness 3 (on a scale 0-7, where 3 is really a normal setting). So the studio shots may seem a bit softer.

Pros:
-sharpness
-fast&silent AF
-price
-built quality

Cons:
-vignetting at 10-15 mm
-border sharpness at 20 mm

HIGHLY RECOMENDED.